DEEPAK CHOPRA Vs. MEENU CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are that the Respondent wife had filed a Petition under Section 25 of the Guardians & Wards Act seeking the custody of the daughter, namely, Shivangi who was at that time in the custody of her father, who is the Petitioner herein. It appears that non-bailable warrants had been issued against the Petitioner owing to his failure to produce the daughter in Court despite repeated Orders to this effect. While the above-mentioned proceedings were pending, the Habeas Corpus Petition came to be filed in this Court which was disposed of on 23.5.2001 in the following terms:

(2.) The proceedings before the Guardian Judge thereafter have been spelt out in detail in the impugned Order dated 2.8.2002 whereby the Petitioner husband application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed.

(3.) Even though the husband had been proceeded ex parte, the Guardian Judge has reiterated visitation rights of the Petitioner in the Final Order. The effect of this is that every weekend is spent by Shivangi with her father which is likely to cause an imbalance. Since this arrangement has not been appealed against, I refrain from making any observations on its appropriateness as a permanent arrangement. Mindful of the fact that in custody matters the Court usually does not feel the constraints of procedural restraints, counsel for the Petitioner had been asked by the Court whether the entire custody question should be reviewed, in the exercise of parens patriae powers and duties. Counsel however declined this offer and asked for the case to be remanded. The Court cannot also ignore the fact that the Respondent/mother has not appealed against the Judgment of the Guardian Judge. Hence the Court should refrain from traversing the path of Review.